It\’s True! Ritchie\’s E-Buzzing rank is higher than mine!

I was having an email exchange with a friend this morning who mentioned his distaste for Tim Worstall’s blog and was surprised when I said whether he liked it or not Worstall is well read. Anyway, it sent me off looking for some data. The following is my ranking from the ebuzzing web site.

Entirely true. The e-buzzing ranking includes Twitter mentions in its calculations. Murph is more active on Twitter than I am: thus a higher ranking.

All systems of measurement have their faults: Alexa does, I believe, show matters the other way around.

Of course it would be entirely misleading for me to try and add my Forbes readership to boost my figures…..

12 thoughts on “It\’s True! Ritchie\’s E-Buzzing rank is higher than mine!”

  1. A post that is, even by his standards, utterly idiotic – that he is read so widely and exerts even a scintilla of influence over the intellectual climate is evidence, if more were needed of the collapse of British education to well below third world levels…

  2. Hmm. Middle aged men in pissing contest. Anyone remember this?

    To be fair he did start it.

    BTW, why do link to your ASI posts on this, but not to Forbes? Are you concerned that we might leave uncouth comments on Forbes?

    Tim adds: There is a method to it I assure you.

    I do some variable number of ASI posts each month. So I need to have a simple record of how many so that I can invoice for them. Thus the “Timmy elsewhere” section. Last day of the month, bring up that section, count the number of “At the ASI” posts.

    At Forbes the accounting system is more sophisticated. They tell me how much they’re going to pay me. Thus I don’t need to track it the same way. I link to posts there occasionally, when it’s a subject I think the Worstallite Yahoos would be particularly interested in.

  3. I think you will find that both of your blogs pale into insignificance when put alongside my superior website, but I refuse to be measured according to free market principles.

    Besides, the public wouldn’t know tax expertise and impeccable logic if it walked up to them in the street and accused them of neoliberal sophistry.

  4. Of course it would be entirely misleading for me to try and add my Forbes readership to boost my figures…..

    I don’t see why that would be misleading – you could compare it directly to his Forbes readership!

  5. Incidentally Tim W, your blog used to be blocked by T-Mobile’s adult filter but this week it has been popping in and out – sometimes within five minutes.

  6. Surreptitious Evil

    Ah, yes. Thought required. Not suitable for those in the education system*, socialists or retired accountants from Downham Market.

    All of whom fit in to one or more of the must-be-protected “vulnerable” groups.

    * No, I’m not talking about the pupils!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *